DCT
1:19-cv-12311
Anova Applied Electronics Inc v. Instant Brands Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Anova Applied Electronics, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Instant Brands, Inc. d/b/a Instant Pot (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-12311, D. Mass., 11/09/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s substantial business in Massachusetts and because Defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sous vide immersion circulator products infringe one utility patent and one design patent related to the construction and ornamental appearance of such devices.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the consumer market for smart kitchen appliances, specifically sous vide immersion circulators, which enable precise, low-temperature cooking in a water bath.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history between the parties.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-12-03 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,826,855 |
| 2017-07-20 | Application Filing Date for U.S. Patent No. D862,154 |
| 2017-11-28 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,826,855 |
| 2019-10-08 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D862,154 |
| 2019-11-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,826,855 - Circulator Cooker with Alarm System, Issued November 28, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: While the background section is brief, the patent abstract and detailed description imply a need for a more user-friendly sous vide device that provides clear notification when a target temperature is reached and is easier to clean. (’855 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a sous vide immersion circulator with a multi-part body, including a lower portion that is releasably connected to the main body. (’855 Patent, col. 5:19-21). This "removable, tool-less screw-on or clamp-on skirt" is intended to allow for easier cleaning of the internal heating and circulation components. (’855 Patent, col. 3:5-12). The claimed device also includes an upper portion with a controller and motor, and a lower portion housing a fluid agitation device that passes through a heating element. (’855 Patent, col. 5:15-29).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to address practical usability issues for consumer-grade sous vide devices by simplifying maintenance and providing audible alerts. (’855 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 2. (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An upper and middle portion including a controller, display device, input device, and motor.
- A lower portion releasably connected to the upper and middle portions.
- The lower portion housing a fluid agitation device coupled to the motor and passing through a heating element.
- The heating element is coupled to the controller.
- The lower portion is configured with a plurality of vertical perforations and a plurality of horizontal perforations, and is for at least partial immersion in a fluid.
U.S. Patent No. D862,154 - Circulator Cooker, Issued October 8, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents address the aesthetic, rather than functional, aspects of an object. The goal is to create a new, original, and ornamental design that distinguishes a product in the marketplace.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a circulator cooker as illustrated in its figures. (’D154 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design features a two-part cylindrical body with a flared, angled upper head containing a circular display, a side-mounted clamping mechanism, and a lower section with patterned vents. (’D154 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinctive visual identity for a sous vide immersion circulator.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described. (’D154 Patent, Claim).
- The complaint asserts infringement of this single claim. (Compl. ¶33).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Instant Pot Accu SV800 and Accu Slim sous vide immersion circulators. (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as "fluidic temperature control device[s] for use in sous vide cooking." (Compl. ¶11, ¶17).
- The complaint alleges the products have a multi-part construction similar to that claimed in the ’855 Patent, including an upper portion with a controller and display, a middle portion, and a lower portion with a "removable element cover." (Compl. ¶¶12-13, 18-19). This lower portion houses a fluid agitation device (circulator) and a heating element (coil). (Compl. ¶¶14, 20). The complaint provides an image of the Accu Slim disassembled, showing the heating coil and circulator. (Compl. p. 8).
- The complaint portrays Anova as a market leader whose signature product is the "best-selling sous vide device," positioning the accused Instant Pot products as direct competitors. (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'855 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an upper portion and a middle portion including a controller, a display device, an input device coupled to the controller and a motor coupled to the controller | The accused devices comprise an upper and middle portion with a controller, an LED screen display, an input device, and a 12V DC motor. | ¶12, ¶18 | col. 5:16-19 |
| a lower portion releasably connected to the upper and the middle portions | The accused devices comprise a "removable element cover" that constitutes a lower portion releasably connected to the upper and middle portions. | ¶13, ¶19 | col. 5:19-21 |
| the lower portion housing a fluid agitation device coupled to the motor and passing through a heating element | The accused devices' lower portion houses a fluid agitation device (circulator) that passes through a heating element (coil), both of which are coupled to the controller and motor. This is illustrated in an annotated diagram. (Compl. p. 5). | ¶14, ¶20 | col. 5:22-25 |
| the heating element coupled to the controller | The accused devices' heating element (coil) is alleged to be coupled to the controller. | ¶14, ¶20 | col. 5:25-26 |
| the lower portion configured with a plurality of vertical perforations and a plurality of horizontal perforations and for at least partial immersion in a fluid | The removable element cover is configured with "water flow channels" for immersion in fluid, which the complaint alleges constitute the claimed perforations. This is depicted in an annotated diagram. (Compl. p. 8). | ¶15, ¶21 | col. 5:26-29 |
'D154 Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the design of the Accu Slim device infringes the ’D154 patent. (Compl. ¶33). The legal standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. (Compl. ¶32). To support this allegation, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison, juxtaposing Figures 1-7 from the ’D154 patent with photographs of the accused Accu Slim device from corresponding angles. (Compl. p. 11). This visual evidence directly supports the allegation that the "overall appearance of the ornamental design... and the corresponding design of Instant Pot's Accu Slim product are substantially the same." (Compl. ¶32).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- '855 Patent - Technical Questions: A central technical question may be whether the accused products' "fluid agitation device" actually performs the function of "passing through a heating element" as required by the claim. An annotated image from an Instant Pot manual is used to support this allegation (Compl. p. 5), but the precise spatial and functional relationship will likely be scrutinized. Additionally, it may be disputed whether the "water flow channels" on the accused devices meet the specific claim limitation of "a plurality of vertical perforations and a plurality of horizontal perforations."
- 'D154 Patent - Visual Similarity: The core of the design patent dispute will be the application of the ordinary observer test. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression created by the accused Accu Slim device compared to the ’D154 patent's drawings, considering any differences in shape, proportion, and surface ornamentation. The side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint is the plaintiff's primary evidence on this point. (Compl. p. 11).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "passing through a heating element" (’855 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the physical relationship between the circulator and the heater, a key structural aspect of the claimed apparatus. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused devices, where the circulator is located within the circumference of the heating coil, meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the heating element as being "proximate the agitation device," which could suggest that strict physical intersection is not required. (’855 Patent, col. 3:39-40).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "passing through" could be construed to require that the path of the agitation device, or the fluid it moves, intersects the physical space occupied by the heating element. Figure 3 of the patent shows the impeller (104) and heating element (125) as distinct components, which might be used to argue for a specific spatial arrangement.
Term: "a plurality of vertical perforations and a plurality of horizontal perforations" (’855 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Infringement of this element hinges on the physical structure of the accused devices' lower cover. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires two distinct types of features ("vertical" and "horizontal"), and the defendant may argue its product has only one type of opening (e.g., vertical slots).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide explicit definitions for "vertical" or "horizontal" perforations, potentially allowing for any openings that have both vertical and horizontal geometric components to satisfy the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts distinct vertical slots as "openings 118." (’855 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:66). The patent itself does not appear to show separate "horizontal perforations," which raises the question of how the term should be construed and whether there is adequate written description support for the full scope of the claim.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced infringement (§ 271(b)) and contributory infringement (§ 271(c)) for the ’855 patent. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant's "instructions and encouragement" through user guides and online materials that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶23). Similar inducement allegations are made for the ’D154 design patent. (Compl. ¶35).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It does, however, lay the groundwork for post-filing willfulness by stating that "Instant Pot will have been on notice of the ['855 and 'D154 patents] since, at the latest, the service of this complaint upon it." (Compl. ¶25, ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue for the utility patent will be one of claim construction and technical fact: does the accused circulator's position within the heating coil meet the claim requirement of "passing through" the heating element? Further, do the water flow channels on the accused products constitute both "vertical" and "horizontal" perforations as claimed, or is there a technical mismatch?
The core question for the design patent will be one of visual comparison under the ordinary observer test: is the overall ornamental appearance of the Instant Pot Accu Slim "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the 'D154 patent? The outcome will depend on a holistic comparison of the designs, not a simple tallying of similarities and differences.
A key evidentiary question will concern indirect infringement: what specific "instructions and encouragement" does Anova allege Instant Pot provides to its users, and do these instructions direct users to assemble or operate the device in a manner that satisfies every element of the asserted claims of the '855 patent?