RPG Diffusor Systems Inc v. AVL Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RPG Diffusor Systems, Inc. (Maryland)
  • Defendant: AVL Systems, Inc. (Florida) and James Philip Hale (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hartman and Egeli, LLP
• Case Identification: 8:12-cv-00412, D. Md., 02/10/2012
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Maryland based on Defendants' business activities and infringing activities within the district, including the operation of a website accessible to residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s acoustical treatment panels infringe four patents related to the design of surfaces that simultaneously provide sound absorption and diffusion.
• Technical Context: The technology involves engineered surfaces used in architectural acoustics to control sound reflections, which is critical for the sonic quality of performance venues, recording studios, and conference rooms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the corporate defendant, AVL Systems, Inc., is the "alter ego" of the individual defendant, James Philip Hale, who allegedly "makes all business decisions concerning the operations of AVL," raising the possibility of personal liability for infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1997-03-05	'992 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
1998-10-06	'992 Patent Issue Date
1999-09-22	'852 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2000-09-05	'852 Patent Issue Date
2002-09-26	'859 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2004-08-10	'859 Patent Issue Date
2005-04-14	'441 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2008-01-29	'441 Patent Issue Date
2012-02-10	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,817,992 - "Planar Binary Amplitude Diffusor"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,817,992, "Planar Binary Amplitude Diffusor," Issued October 6, 1998.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for acoustical treatments in spaces where physical depth is limited, making it impractical to use traditional, deep sound-diffusing structures to control sound reflections ('992 Patent, col. 1:29-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a thin, flat-faced acoustical panel that combines both sound absorption and diffusion. It achieves this by arranging a pattern of alternating reflective and absorptive patches on its surface ('992 Patent, col. 1:62-65). The arrangement is not random but is dictated by a mathematical binary sequence, such as a Maximum Length Sequence (MLS), which has a "flat power spectrum" to ensure effective, uniform dispersion of sound ('992 Patent, col. 2:1-6). Figure 7 of the patent depicts a visual representation of such a panel ('992 Patent, Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This design enabled the creation of a thin (e.g., 1-4 inches) panel that could simultaneously manage both sound absorption and diffusion, a valuable combination for acoustically sensitive environments with spatial constraints ('992 Patent, col. 2:46-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A generally rectangular body with a length, width, and depth.
  • A flat, generally rectangular forward-facing acoustical surface.
  • The surface has a plurality of discrete reflective and absorptive regions arranged in a pattern.
  • The pattern of regions is arranged in accordance with the calculation of a "binary sequence having a flat power spectrum."

U.S. Patent No. 6,112,852 - "Acoustical Treatments with Diffusive and Absorptive Properties and Process of Design"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,112,852, "Acoustical Treatments with Diffusive and Absorptive Properties and Process of Design," Issued September 5, 2000.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Prior art methods, including that of the '992 patent, often resulted in a fixed, nearly 50/50 ratio of absorptive to reflective areas, limiting a designer's ability to specify a different balance of acoustic properties ('852 Patent, col. 1:40-52).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses using a "genetic algorithm"—a type of computational optimization—to create the binary sequence that defines the pattern of reflective and absorptive patches ('852 Patent, col. 2:20-24). This process allows a designer to pre-define a desired percentage of reflectivity (e.g., 30%) and have the algorithm generate a pattern that achieves this target while maximizing diffusive performance ('852 Patent, col. 2:33-37). The patent also teaches that applying these optimized patterns to a curved surface can dramatically enhance diffusion ('852 Patent, col. 2:41-48).
• Technical Importance: This invention provided acoustical designers with greater flexibility, allowing them to create hybrid surfaces with a custom-tailored balance of absorption and diffusion to meet the specific needs of a given space ('852 Patent, col. 2:3-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement against the patent family (Compl. ¶21). Independent claims 1 (flat surface) and 8 (curved surface) are representative.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A body with a volume and a flat forward-facing acoustical surface.
  • The surface has a plurality of discrete reflective and absorptive regions arranged in a pattern.
  • The pattern is arranged in accordance with a binary sequence "optimized through operation of a genetic algorithm."
• Independent Claim 8 is similar but requires a "curved forward facing acoustical surface."

U.S. Patent No. 6,772,859 - "Embodiments of Aperiodic Tiling of a Single Asymmetric Diffusive Base Shape"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,772,859, "Embodiments of Aperiodic Tiling of a Single Asymmetric Diffusive Base Shape," Issued August 10, 2004.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the acoustic problem of "lobing," which occurs when identical diffuser panels are repeated periodically on a surface ('859 Patent, col. 1:24-37). The solution is to create a single asymmetric "tile" or "base shape" and then arrange it in various orientations (e.g., rotated 90 or 180 degrees) to form a larger, non-repeating (aperiodic) installation. This method minimizes periodicity effects while reducing manufacturing costs by requiring only one base mold ('859 Patent, col. 2:10-25).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶19). Independent claims 1 and 34 are representative.
• Accused Features: Defendant's "perfect wave" product is alleged to infringe the ’859 Patent (Compl. ¶19).

U.S. Patent No. 7,322,441 - "Extended Bandwidth Folded Well Diffusor"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,322,441, "Extended Bandwidth Folded Well Diffusor," Issued January 29, 2008.
• Technology Synopsis: The invention seeks to extend the diffusion performance of shallow acoustic panels into lower frequencies without increasing their physical depth ('441 Patent, col. 1:6-14). It achieves this with a diffuser design featuring folded, L-shaped half-width wells at its edges. When these panels are placed next to each other, the L-shaped wells from adjacent panels combine to form a deeper, T-shaped recess, which lowers the resonant frequency and extends the effective bandwidth of the overall array ('441 Patent, col. 2:9-15).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶17). Independent claims 1 and 17 are representative.
• Accused Features: Defendant's "QR-F® Asymmetric" product is alleged to infringe the ’441 Patent (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint specifically names the "QR-F® Asymmetric," "Binary DiSorb," and "perfect wave" acoustical panels (Compl. ¶¶17-19). It also makes a broader allegation that Defendant AVL has offered for sale other infringing products in response to invitations to bid for construction projects (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused instrumentalities are described as acoustical treatment panels (Compl. ¶¶17-19). The complaint alleges that AVL markets these products in direct competition with Plaintiff, including bidding on projects where Plaintiff's products are specified and offering its own products as "equivalent in appearance and performance" (Compl. ¶¶20-21). It further alleges that Defendants tout their products as having performance "equal to or superior to corresponding RPG products" (Compl. ¶36). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'992 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An acoustical device, comprising: a) a generally rectangular body having a length, a width and a depth;	The accused "Binary DiSorb" is identified as a product sold by Defendant, which the complaint alleges is an acoustical panel.	¶18	col. 8:1-4
b) said body having a flat generally rectangular forward facing acoustical surface...	The complaint alleges infringement by the "Binary DiSorb" product, which is alleged to correspond to the patent's "Planar Binary Amplitude Diffusor." The infringement theory rests on the product being a flat-faced panel.	¶18	col. 8:5-8
c) said acoustical surface having a plurality of discrete reflective regions and a plurality of discrete absorptive regions arranged in a pattern...	The complaint alleges on information and belief that the "Binary DiSorb" product infringes, implying its surface is composed of a pattern of reflective and absorptive regions as claimed.	¶18	col. 8:9-12
said regions being arranged in accordance with calculation of a binary sequence having a flat power spectrum.	This is the central technical limitation. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the "Binary DiSorb" product infringes, implying its surface pattern is either generated by or embodies a binary sequence with this property.	¶18	col. 8:12-14

'852 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An acoustical device, comprising: a) a body having a volume; b) said body having a flat forward facing acoustical surface...	The complaint alleges that Defendant has offered to furnish products for installation that infringe one or more of the asserted patents, including the ’852 Patent.	¶21	col. 7:45-50
c) said acoustical surface having a plurality of discrete reflective regions and a plurality of discrete absorptive regions arranged in a pattern...	The infringement theory is that at least one of AVL's offered products possesses a surface with a pattern of distinct reflective and absorptive regions.	¶21	col. 7:50-54
said regions being arranged in accordance with a binary sequence optimized through operation of a genetic algorithm.	The complaint alleges that AVL represents its products as equivalent in performance to Plaintiff's patented products. The infringement theory is that to achieve such performance, AVL's products must be arranged according to a similarly advanced design method as claimed.	¶¶21, 36	col. 7:54-58

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual/Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are based on "information and belief" and lack specific factual support. A primary point of contention will be whether discovery uncovers evidence that Defendants' products actually incorporate the specific technical features of the claims. For the '992 patent, does the "Binary DiSorb" pattern map to a sequence with a "flat power spectrum"? For the '852 patent, is there any evidence that Defendants use a "genetic algorithm" or have copied a pattern generated by one?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether the claimed "pattern" refers only to the process of its creation (e.g., using an algorithm) or to a specific, identifiable structure in the final product that is distinguishable from patterns created by other means.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "binary sequence having a flat power spectrum" ('992 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core technical characteristic of the surface pattern in the '992 patent. The definition will determine whether the claim covers only the specific Maximum Length Sequences (MLS) disclosed in the patent or a broader class of mathematically-defined patterns.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that while the MLS is "an ideal sequence to employ," it clarifies that "any binary sequence which has a flat power spectrum is a suitable candidate" ('992 Patent, col. 2:3-6). This language may support an interpretation that is not limited to the MLS examples.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term is indefinite unless construed in light of the specific examples provided, such as the MLS generated by the shift register shown in Figure 1 ('992 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:26-48). The specification's focus on MLS as "ideal" could be used to argue it is central to the invention's scope.

Term 2: "optimized through operation of a genetic algorithm" ('852 Patent, Claims 1, 8)

• Context and Importance: This phrase distinguishes the '852 patent from prior art by claiming a specific design methodology. The construction of this term is critical, as it raises questions about whether infringement can be proven by analyzing the final product's structure alone or if it requires evidence of the defendant's actual design process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the general steps of a genetic algorithm, including creating a population, calculating fitness, breeding, and mutation ('852 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:56-col. 5:14). A plaintiff could argue the term covers any iterative optimization process that incorporates these fundamental steps.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific "useful fitness function" (Equation 3) used in the optimization ('852 Patent, col. 5:15-34). A defendant may argue that the claim term should be limited to processes that use this or a very similar fitness function, or that the term is indefinite without such a limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 but does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or intent to cause infringement by third parties.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that, after discovery, evidence will likely show Defendants acted with "full knowledge of the existence and enforceability" of the patents (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not allege specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

• A central issue will be one of proof and evidence: Given that the infringement allegations are based on "information and belief," can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence demonstrating that the accused panels possess surface patterns dictated by the specific mathematical and algorithmic limitations of the asserted claims?
• A key legal question will be one of claim scope and interpretation: Can a claim limitation describing a method of creation, such as a pattern "optimized through operation of a genetic algorithm," be infringed by a physical product without direct evidence of the accused infringer's design process? The construction of such terms will be dispositive.
• A significant procedural question will be one of personal liability: Can the Plaintiff meet the legal standard to "pierce the corporate veil" by proving that the individual defendant, James Philip Hale, is the "alter ego" of AVL Systems, Inc., thereby making him personally liable for the alleged infringement?