DCT
1:25-cv-04936
O2COOL, LLC v. Menard, Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: O2cool, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Menard, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thompson Coburn LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04936, N.D. Ill., 05/05/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, has committed acts of infringement, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a former customer, is selling "copycat" handheld misting fans that infringe two of Plaintiff's utility patents related to fan construction and durability.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld, battery-operated misting fans, a consumer product designed for personal cooling in warm environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long-standing business relationship where Menard sold O2COOL's patented fans for over a decade. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with specific, written notice of infringement of the patents-in-suit beginning in July 2023. Despite multiple communications over the following year, Defendant allegedly continued its infringing sales and retaliated by ceasing all purchases of Plaintiff's products. This history forms the foundation of the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-03-28 | Priority Date for ’388 Patent and ’794 Patent |
| 2010-10-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,806,388 Issues |
| 2010-10-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,810,794 Issues |
| c. 2023-04 | Plaintiff learns of Defendant’s sale of accused products |
| 2023-07-06 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant identifying ’388 and ’794 patents |
| 2024-08-05 | Plaintiff sends draft complaint to Defendant |
| 2025-05-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,806,388 - "Handheld Water Misting Fan With Improved Air Flow," issued October 5, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art handheld misting fans as having compromised air flow because bulky components, such as batteries, are often placed in the air stream behind the fan blades. These designs are also described as having durability and aesthetic issues, such as uncomfortable grips and "cheap-looking" components (’388 Patent, col. 2:1-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve these problems by relocating the power source (batteries) to a compartment "remote from the fan motor," thereby removing obstructions from the air path to improve performance ('388 Patent, Abstract). This relocation, combined with a "dog bone shaped configuration," allows for a narrower, more ergonomic handle and a larger fluid reservoir, addressing the grip and capacity issues ('388 Patent, col. 2:61-67).
- Technical Importance: The design aimed to create a more powerful, ergonomic, and efficient consumer product by systematically addressing the functional and structural weaknesses of earlier models ('388 Patent, col. 2:29-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A power source compartment for accommodating a power source therein.
- The power source compartment is positioned within the device in a location "remote from the fan motor."
- The area bounded by the fan shroud is "substantially free of any structure" to maximize air flow.
- The lower handle section has a "relatively narrow intermediate portion" for gripping and an "enlarged lower portion" for an enlarged fluid reservoir.
U.S. Patent No. 7,810,794 - "Break Resistant Joint," issued October 12, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a critical weakness in conventional misting fans: the joint connecting the upper fan assembly to the lower water bottle. Typical screw-threaded connections are described as "weak and very prone to breakage when dropped" (’794 Patent, col. 2:7-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "break resistant joint." This is achieved by using a lower body with a "non-circular" neck, which prevents rotation. The upper body is formed from two halves that assemble around this neck. A "rail and groove" system between the neck and the upper body halves provides further rotational resistance, and the assembly is secured with "lock means." ('794 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-18).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific mechanical solution to improve the durability and extend the life of a consumer product subject to rough handling by reinforcing its most common point of structural failure ('794 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A lower body portion terminating in an upper neck with a "non-circular configuration."
- An upper body portion formed by a "first half body portion and a second half body portion."
- A structural interlock where one of the neck or the upper body halves has a "groove," and the other has a "rail" that is "slidedly engaged" within the groove.
- "Lock means" for locking the first and second body portions together to form the joint.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Handheld Water Misting Fan - Assorted" (Model: SCP04656) and the "Envisionary Toys Water Spray Fan - Assorted Styles" (Model: XH374555), collectively referred to as the "Infringing Fan(s)" (Compl. ¶29). Visual evidence from Defendant's website is provided, showing the products for sale (Compl. ¶29).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as handheld, battery-powered fans that spray a fine mist of water for personal cooling (Compl. ¶55-58). The complaint alleges these are "copycat fans" that are "effectively identical, aesthetically" and functionally to O2COOL's own products that embody the patents (Compl. ¶30). A side-by-side visual comparison is offered to support the claim of aesthetic identity (Compl. ¶30). The complaint further alleges that Menard sells these fans at a lower price than O2COOL's products (Compl. ¶1, ¶65).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’388 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a power source compartment for accommodating a power source therein, said power source compartment being positioned within the device in a location remote from the fan motor, | The Infringing Fan has a power source compartment (J) for batteries, which is positioned in the handle section of the device, away from the fan motor (D) located in the upper head section. An annotated image in the complaint identifies these separate locations (Compl. ¶60). | ¶59, ¶60 | col. 4:11-16 |
| the area bounded by the shroud being substantially free of any structure thereby to maximize the air flow path therethrough, | The area bounded by the fan's protective shroud (E) is alleged to be substantially free of any structure, thereby maximizing airflow. The complaint provides an annotated image showing this open area (Compl. ¶62). | ¶61, ¶62 | col. 4:25-30 |
| and the lower handle section having a relatively narrow intermediate portion forming a gripping handle, and an enlarged lower portion to form an enlarged fluid reservoir. | The Infringing Fan's lower handle section (A) is alleged to have a narrow intermediate portion (K) for gripping and an enlarged lower portion (L) that forms the fluid reservoir. This "dog bone" shape is illustrated with callouts in an image provided in the complaint (Compl. ¶62). | ¶61, ¶62 | col. 3:51-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "remote from the fan motor." The defense could argue that placing batteries in the handle of a handheld device is a conventional and obvious design choice, not a location sufficiently "remote" to be inventive. The interpretation of "substantially free of any structure" will also be critical, as the patent's own figures depict motor struts within the shroud, suggesting the term is relative, not absolute.
’794 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| the lower body portion having an upwardly contoured configuration terminating in an upper neck portion having a non-circular configuration and a relatively flat top wall, | The Infringing Fan's lower body (D) is alleged to terminate in an upper neck portion (G) that has a non-circular shape and a relatively flat top wall (H). An annotated, disassembled view of the accused product is provided to illustrate this feature (Compl. ¶76). | ¶75, ¶76 | col. 6:5-7 |
| said upper body portion formed by a first half body portion and a second half body portion... each... terminating in a first collar body and a second collar body respectively, | The upper body of the Infringing Fan is alleged to be formed by a first half (J) and a second half (K), which terminate in respective collar bodies (L and M). The complaint provides an annotated image showing the two-part construction of the upper body (Compl. ¶80). | ¶79, ¶80 | col. 6:17-21 |
| one of said neck portion and...collar bodies having a least one elongate groove...and the other...having at least one rail formed therein...said rail being slidedly engaged... | The complaint alleges that the neck portion and collar bodies of the Infringing Fan have at least one elongate groove (N) and at least one rail (O). It further alleges these parts are formed and contoured for the rail to be "slidedly engaged" within the groove when the upper body is assembled onto the neck. Images with callouts pointing to these alleged features on the assembled product are supplied (Compl. ¶82, ¶84). | ¶81, ¶82, ¶84 | col. 6:29-37 |
| lock means for locking said first and second body portions together when assembled...to form a break resistant joint... | The Infringing Fan is alleged to have a "lock means" (P) for locking the first and second body portions together to form a break-resistant joint. An annotated image points to screws or similar fasteners on the side of the fan head as constituting this "lock means" (Compl. ¶86). | ¶85, ¶86 | col. 6:37-43 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused product actually contains the "rail and groove" system as claimed. The complaint's allegations for this element (Compl. ¶82) rely on images of an assembled product with exterior callouts, which may not definitively show an internal, slideably engaged mechanism. The functionality and structure of the accused product's joint will be a primary focus.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’388 Patent
- The Term: "remote from the fan motor"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the '388 patent. Its construction will determine whether placing batteries in the handle—a common location in many handheld electronics—falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's objective was to clear the airflow path, and the definition of "remote" will dictate how that functional goal maps to a required physical structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in functional terms, stating the goal is moving the battery compartment "to a location removed from air flow stream" ('388 Patent, col. 2:50-52). This could support a construction where any location not directly impeding airflow is "remote."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments consistently show the battery compartments (41, 43) located within the lower reservoir portion (16), physically distinct from the upper shroud portion (12) that houses the motor (20) ('388 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring placement in a separate body section.
For the ’794 Patent
- The Term: "rail being slidedly engaged within said groove"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific anti-rotation mechanism. The case may turn on whether the accused product's assembly method incorporates a structure that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific type of mechanical interaction, and infringement will depend on a close structural correspondence.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general language "slidedly engaged" could be argued to cover any mating features where one part slides into or along another to guide assembly, even if the fit is not precise.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent links this structure to the function of preventing rotation ('794 Patent, col. 3:13-16). This functional context suggests a more substantial, interlocking connection is required, as depicted in the patent's cross-sectional figures showing a distinct rail (48) captured within a corresponding groove (35) ('794 Patent, Fig. 3, 5).
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint makes extensive allegations of willful infringement. The basis for willfulness includes claims of both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is predicated on Defendant's alleged long history of selling O2COOL's patented products, which were marked pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287 (Compl. ¶33). Post-suit knowledge is based on a detailed timeline of communications, beginning with a July 6, 2023 letter that explicitly identified the '388 and '794 patents as being infringed (Compl. ¶36). The complaint alleges that Defendant continued selling the accused products despite these repeated notices (Compl. ¶39, ¶51).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused fan's two-part housing and its connection to the bottle's neck embody the specific "non-circular" neck and interlocking "rail and groove" system claimed in the '794 patent, or is it a structurally distinct, conventional method of assembly?
- A key question of inventive scope will be: does the placement of batteries in the accused fan's handle practice the '388 patent's specific claimed solution of a "remote" power source for improved airflow, or is it merely an obvious and unpatentable design choice common in the field of handheld devices?
- Given the detailed allegations of a prior business relationship and repeated, specific notices of infringement, a critical issue for damages will be willfulness: can the plaintiff prove that the defendant’s alleged infringement constituted egregious misconduct lacking a reasonable, good-faith defense, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages?