DCT
6:25-cv-00417
Al Azem v. Safe Arc Technology LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Samer Al-Azem and PetroHab LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Safe Arc Technology, L.L.C. (Louisiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: NeunerPate; McAughan Deaver PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00417, W.D. La., 04/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Louisiana Limited Liability Company that resides in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pressurized welding enclosures infringe a patent related to a modular panel attachment system using a specific male/female edge design with hook-and-loop fasteners.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns modular, pressurized enclosures that create a safe environment for "hot work," such as welding, in hazardous settings like offshore platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed backstory suggesting misappropriation. It claims that an individual, Ben Vetuski, was exposed to the inventor's designs in 2011 while being considered for employment at Plaintiff PetroHab, but subsequently joined a company that formed the Defendant, which then began selling allegedly infringing products that were "substantial copies" of Plaintiff's own.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-Late | Samer Al-Azem invents and files a provisional patent application. |
| 2011-05-02 | Earliest Priority Date for '775 Patent (Provisional App. Filing). |
| 2011-Spring | Plaintiff PetroHab LLC is formed. |
| 2011-Spring | Individual allegedly exposed to inventor's PWE enclosure design. |
| 2011-06-01 | Individual hired by company that allegedly formed Defendant. |
| 2012-Mid | Defendant Safe Arc Technology, L.L.C. is formed. |
| 2012-06-01 | Defendant begins offering its PWE products. |
| 2017-01-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,545,775 is issued. |
| 2022-End | Plaintiff learns of Defendant's allegedly infringing products. |
| 2025-04-02 | Complaint is filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,545,775 - "Attachment Systems and Methods Usable to Form Enclosures"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the drawbacks of conventional hot-work enclosures. Rigid panels are difficult to transport and assemble, while flexible panels using zippers are tedious to align, prone to damage, and their silent operation during separation can be a safety hazard in emergencies. ('775 Patent, col. 2:3-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system of interchangeable panels connected by a novel fastening mechanism that replaces zippers. A "male edge" on one panel, which has fastening material on its front and rear sides, is inserted between two flaps extending from a "female edge" on an adjacent panel. These flaps have corresponding fastening material on their inner surfaces, allowing them to wrap around and securely grip both sides of the male edge, creating a strong, pressure-rated seal. ('775 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-65). This design is intended to be robust, easy to assemble, and provide an audible "tearing" sound upon separation for safety. ('775 Patent, col. 5:22-38).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided an alternative to zipper-based connections, aiming for improved durability, interchangeability, and safety in modular enclosures for hazardous environments. ('775 Patent, col. 2:17-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5, and dependent claims 2-4 and 6-11 (Compl. ¶30).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an enclosure with two panels, outlining the core connection system:
- a first panel having a "male edge" with a "first portion of a fastening medium" on its front and rear sides;
- a second panel with a "female edge" having a "first flap" and a "second flap" extending therefrom, each flap having a "second portion of the fastening medium" on its inner surface;
- wherein the flaps engage the front and rear sides of the "male edge"; and
- wherein the engagement forms a "seal adapted to maintain a pressure differential".
- Independent Claim 5 expands on this concept, reciting an enclosure comprising a wall made of four interconnected panels, each having the male/female edge structure, engaged to form a pressure-rated seal.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "pressurized welding enclosure" or "PWE," referred to in the complaint as the "SA-PWE" (Compl. ¶¶23, 30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The SA-PWE is a modular enclosure constructed from interconnected panels designed for use in hot-work applications (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges the panels are joined using "strips of a hook and loop fastening medium" to form a pressurized structure (Compl. ¶23). Visual evidence provided in the complaint shows the SA-PWE being assembled from multiple orange and black panels and then pressurized. The complaint alleges that upon its introduction, the SA-PWE "had become an instance success" (Compl. ¶23). A screenshot from Defendant's promotional material depicts a fully assembled enclosure with blowers attached, captioned "...blowers maintain a positive pressure overbalance inside the PWE..." (Compl. ¶31, p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,545,775 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first panel having a male edge with a front side and a rear side, wherein the front side and the rear side each comprise a first portion of a fastening medium thereon; and | The complaint alleges the SA-PWE includes a first panel with a male edge having fastening material on its front and rear sides. A screenshot from a promotional video is annotated to identify a "First Panel" and a "Male Edge" (Compl. ¶31, p. 6). | ¶31 | col. 8:8-14 |
| a second panel having a female edge with a first flap and a second flap extending therefrom, wherein the first flap and the second flap each have an inner surface comprising a second portion... | The SA-PWE is alleged to include a second panel with a female edge that has two flaps, each with fastening material on its inner surface. A screenshot is annotated to show a "Second Panel" with a "Female Edge" engaging the "Male Edge" of the first panel (Compl. ¶31, p. 6). | ¶31 | col. 8:50-68 |
| wherein the first flap engages the front side and the second flap engages the rear side via engagement between the first portion and the second portion of the fastening medium, | The complaint alleges the flaps of the SA-PWE's female edge engage the front and rear sides of the male edge. A video screenshot shows the "First Flap - Female Edge" wrapping over the "Male Edge" to form a connection (Compl. ¶31, p. 7). | ¶31 | col. 8:6-14 |
| wherein the engagement between the first panel and the second panel forms a seal adapted to maintain a pressure differential across opposing sides thereof. | The complaint alleges the engagement of the SA-PWE panels creates a seal that maintains a pressure differential. A screenshot shows the fully assembled enclosure being pressurized, with text overlay stating "maintain a positive pressure / balance inside" (Compl. ¶31, p. 8). | ¶31 | col. 12:28-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be whether the SA-PWE’s panel connection system operates in the specific manner claimed. The complaint's evidence, including annotated screenshots from Defendant's own materials, appears to map the product's features directly onto the claim limitations. For example, the complaint provides a clear visual identifying the accused product's "Male Edge," "Female Edge," and "First Panel" (Compl. ¶31, p. 6). The dispute may focus on whether there are subtle but material structural or functional differences between the accused product and the claimed invention not apparent from the provided visuals.
- Scope Questions: Given the patentee-coined terms like "male edge" and "female edge," the dispute could raise the question of whether the defendant’s panel connection structure falls within the proper construction of these terms, or if it represents a distinct, non-infringing design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "male edge"
- Context and Importance: This term, coined by the patentee, defines one half of the novel connection. Its construction is critical because infringement hinges on whether the accused product possesses this specific structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the scope of "male edge" will determine whether similar but not identical edge designs could be captured by the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the term functionally as an edge with a "first portion of a fastening medium" on both its "front side and a rear side," intended to be engaged by the flaps of a female edge (col. 12:8-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the male edge has "two hook strips...extending along the length thereof, positioned on the front side...and two hook strips...extending along the length thereof, positioned on the rear side" ('775 Patent, col. 8:41-49). A party could argue the term should be limited to a structure with these specific features.
The Term: "female edge"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the complementary half of the connection, characterized by its two flaps. The precise meaning of "a first flap and a second flap extending therefrom" will be central to determining infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require an edge having two flaps that extend from it and have fastening material on their inner surfaces, which then "engages the front side and the...rear side" of the male edge ('775 Patent, col. 12:13-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures depict the flaps as integral parts of the panel body that pivot to wrap around the adjacent panel's edge ('775 Patent, col. 8:50-54; Figs. 1A-1D). A party could argue that a structure with separate or differently attached flaps would not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of both direct and indirect infringement (Compl. ¶29). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the elements of inducement or contributory infringement, such as identifying specific acts of encouraging infringement or the sale of a non-staple component. The primary focus of the factual allegations is on direct infringement by Defendant.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on a detailed narrative of pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶34). The complaint contends that an individual who later became involved with the Defendant's formation was exposed to the inventor's proprietary designs in 2011, years before the patent issued, and that the resulting SA-PWE is a "substantial copy" of the plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶¶12, 17, 21-23). These allegations of copying and prior knowledge form the basis for the willfulness claim.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of direct factual infringement: Based on the detailed claim charts and visual evidence presented, does the accused SA-PWE's panel connection system contain the specific "male edge" and "female edge with two flaps" structures as recited in the asserted claims, or are there material technical differences that place it outside the claims' scope?
- A second critical issue, with significant implications for willfulness and potential damages, will be one of provenance and intent: Can the Plaintiff substantiate the factual narrative that the Defendant's product design was derived from knowledge of the inventor’s pre-patent concepts, as the complaint's detailed backstory alleges, or was it independently developed?