DCT

0:17-cv-01768

Seasonal Specialties LLC v. Telebrands Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:17-cv-01768, D. Minn., 05/26/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial business in the district and allegedly targeted a press release accusing Plaintiff of infringement at Plaintiff's business interests in Minnesota.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its decorative lighting products do not infringe two of Defendant's patents, one design and one utility patent, related to laser light projectors.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns decorative laser projectors, often used for holiday lighting, which create moving patterns of light on a surface like a house.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff initiated this action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement following a press release from Defendant that accused "companies" of selling "infringing laser light products." Notably, after this complaint was filed, U.S. Patent No. 9,546,775 underwent an ex parte reexamination, which resulted in the cancellation of all original claims (1-25) and the addition of new, amended claims (26-56). This post-filing amendment of the patent's claims will fundamentally reshape the scope of the infringement analysis.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-10-30 U.S. Patent No. D773,707 Priority Date
2015-12-03 U.S. Patent No. 9,546,775 Priority Date
2016-12-06 U.S. Patent No. D773,707 Issue Date
2017-01-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,546,775 Issue Date
2017-05-26 Complaint Filing Date
2017-07-13 Reexamination Request Filed for U.S. Patent No. 9,546,775
2018-08-30 Reexamination Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 9,546,775

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D773,707 - "Landscape light," Issued Dec. 6, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a particular ornamental design for a landscape light projector (D’707 Patent, Description).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a landscape light, characterized by its cylindrical housing, front circular face with two lens apertures, and an integrated mounting bracket and ground stake (D’707 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The sole claim is for "the ornamental design for a landscape light, as shown and described" (D’707 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic for a consumer electronics product in the competitive decorative lighting market (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in the drawings.

U.S. Patent No. 9,546,775 - "Decorative Lighting Apparatus Having Two Laser Light Sources," Issued Jan. 17, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior decorative laser lights, such as limited functionality and inconvenient switch mechanisms (’775 Patent, col. 1:31-38). The goal is to create more dynamic and varied decorative light patterns.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a combination of two different colored laser sources (e.g., red and green) and a motion assembly to project moving light patterns ('775 Patent, Abstract). The motion assembly includes both articulating (moving) and stationary optical elements, such as diffraction gratings, which are driven by a motor to create effects like an "exploding firework pattern" by moving the light across a surface ('775 Patent, col. 1:46-64; col. 2:5-13). This allows a single device to project complex, multi-colored, moving patterns.
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of complex, choreographed light shows from a single, compact projector, an advancement over static or simple single-pattern projectors ('775 Patent, col. 8:21-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • All original claims (1-25) were canceled during reexamination ('775 C1 Patent, col. 1:14-15). The complaint was filed before this reexamination.
  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any claim" of the patent (Compl. ¶18). Representative new independent claim 26, added during reexamination, requires:
    • a first laser light source generating a first laser light having a first color;
    • a second laser light source generating a second laser light having a second color;
    • a first stationary optical element having a diffraction grating in the path of the first light;
    • a second stationary optical element having a diffraction grating in the path of the second light;
    • a motion assembly including:
      • a first articulating optical element having a diffraction grating in the path of the first light;
      • a second articulating optical element having a diffraction grating in the path of the second light;
      • at least one motor coupled to the articulating optical elements to drive them, causing the first and second lights to move across a surface in a predetermined pattern.
        ('775 C1 Patent, col. 1:20-51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific product by name or model number. It refers generally to Plaintiff's "decorative lighting products" and "the Accused Products" (Compl. ¶7, ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint states that Seasonal Specialties is "engaged in the business of... developing and selling decorative lighting products, including decorative lighting products manufactured for sale and use during the holiday season" (Compl. ¶7). No specific technical functionality of the accused products is described in the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, does not set forth infringement allegations. Instead, it asserts that the Defendant, Telebrands, has accused Seasonal Specialties of infringement through a "widely distributed a press release" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint alleges that "no Accused Product of Seasonal Specialties infringes any claim" of the D’707 Patent or the ’975 Patent (Compl. ¶15, ¶18). Without a specific infringement theory from the patent holder articulated in the complaint, a claim-by-claim analysis of infringement is not possible from the document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This analysis focuses on terms from the amended claims of the ’975 Patent, as they will define the ultimate dispute.

1. The Term: "stationary optical element" (from new claim 26)

  • Context and Importance: The amended claims introduce a distinction between "stationary" and "articulating" optical elements. The definition of "stationary" is critical because an accused device must possess both types of elements to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if components within the accused device that do not move relative to the housing meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "stationary." A party could argue it means any optical element not driven by the motor assembly, even if it is adjustable or removable.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts "fixed optical elements seat 514" and "fixed covers 518" which hold "fixed optical elements 516" ('775 Patent, Fig. 5B; col. 7:48-55). A party could argue that "stationary" requires being structurally fixed in a dedicated seat, as shown in this specific embodiment, not merely being non-motorized.

2. The Term: "articulating optical element" (from new claim 26)

  • Context and Importance: This term, in conjunction with "stationary optical element," forms the core of the claimed mechanical structure. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products contain components that "articulate" in the manner claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the motor causing elements to be "rotated or oscillated" ('775 Patent, col. 8:6-8). This could support a broad definition covering any motor-driven movement, including simple rotation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract describes an "articulating optical element" and a motor that "drives the articulating optical element" ('775 Patent, Abstract). Figure 5B shows a specific arrangement where "articulating optical elements 510" are disposed in "gears 508" which are in turn driven by motor 502 via connecting shaft 504 and gear 506 ('775 Patent, Fig. 5B; col. 7:45-65). A narrower construction might require this gear-driven linkage, not just any motor-driven movement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain facts related to allegations of indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain facts related to allegations of willful infringement.

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

This declaratory judgment action presents several central questions for the court, amplified by the post-filing reexamination of the '775 patent.

  1. A core issue for the '775 patent will be one of technical scope under the amended claims: Do the accused decorative lighting products practice the specific combination of both a "stationary optical element" and a separate "articulating optical element"—both with diffraction gratings—as required by new claim 26, which was added after the lawsuit was filed? The case may hinge on whether the accused products possess this dual-element structure or a simpler, different mechanism.

  2. For the D’707 design patent, the key question is one of visual comparison: Does the overall ornamental design of the plaintiff's products create the same visual impression on an ordinary observer as the design claimed in the D'707 patent, or are the visual differences significant enough to avoid infringement?

  3. A foundational question is one of justiciability: Did the defendant's press release, which did not name the plaintiff explicitly but quoted its CEO discussing "infringing laser light products," create a sufficient "case or controversy" to give the plaintiff standing to bring this declaratory judgment action in the first place?