DCT
0:17-cv-02189
Red Rhino Leak Detection Inc v. Anderson Mfg Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Red Rhino Leak Detection, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Anderson Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bernick Lifson, P.A.; McHale & Slavin, P.A.
- Case Identification: 0:17-cv-02189, D. Minn., 06/22/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because the Defendant is a Minnesota corporation that resides in the district and has a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pool leak detection product infringes a patent related to a system and method for detecting leaks in fluid-filled vessels.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves devices used to isolate and test specific components of swimming pools, such as lights, drains, or skimmers, for potential water leaks.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with formal notice of the patent-in-suit via a letter from counsel on February 2, 2017, which included an infringement claim chart for claim 1. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-15 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,464,959 |
| 2016-10-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,464,959 Issued |
| 2017-02-02 | Plaintiff sends notice letter and claim chart to Defendant |
| 2017-06-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,464,959 - "System and Method for Detecting Leaks in a Fluid Filled Vessel," issued October 11, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a simple, easy-to-use system for pool owners or attendants to detect leaks that may occur around various pool components, including drains, lights, skimmers, and suction lines (’959 Patent, col. 1:26-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a device that creates a temporary, localized seal around a suspected leak area on an underwater surface of a vessel like a swimming pool. It consists of a resilient, ring-shaped seal coupled to a rigid, often transparent, housing (’959 Patent, col. 2:38-48). This housing has a fitting that allows a user to either inject a dye to visually track water movement or connect a flow meter to measure water loss, thereby isolating and confirming the presence of a leak at that specific point (’959 Patent, col. 2:42-48). The patent describes various embodiments for anchoring the device, such as using weights (FIG. 4) or a threaded rod with a suction cup for attachment to pool lights (FIG. 8).
- Technical Importance: The described technology provides a method for systematically isolating and testing individual pool components, which can simplify the otherwise difficult process of pinpointing the exact source of a leak in a large body of water (’959 Patent, col. 1:33-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint explicitly references infringement of claim 1 (’Compl. ¶13).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A leak detecting device for swimming pool lights in a water-filled swimming pool.
- A ring-shaped annular resilient seal to contact and seal against an underwater surface around a defined area.
- A rigid housing coupled to the seal.
- The housing has a threaded rod extending through it, which terminates in a suction cup made of a resilient material for anchoring.
- The housing is hollow and has an inlet accessible from the exterior for delivering fluid (e.g., dye).
- The housing is transparent so the flow of dye is observable.
- The device is operable while submerged, with the threaded rod and suction cup being visible from outside the housing.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but only provides a claim chart for claim 1, reserving the right to assert others (’Compl. ¶12, ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is identified as the "Light Tester" (’Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a "knock-off leak detection product" that embodies the invention protected by the ’959 Patent (’Compl. ¶10). Its function is alleged to be for pool leak detection (’Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides a screenshot from the Defendant's website, attached as Exhibit B, which is said to promote the product (’Compl. ¶10). The product description on this website allegedly "informs and instructs" customers on the method of use (’Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart for claim 1, attached as part of Exhibit C, but the exhibit itself is not included in the filing (’Compl. ¶13). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations.
- ’959 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A leak detecting device for swimming pool lights in a water filled swimming pool comprising: a ring shaped annular resilient seal adapted to contact a surface of the swimming pool underwater and create a seal... | The "Light Tester" is alleged to be a pool leak detection product that embodies the patented invention. | ¶10, ¶12 | col. 4:45-51 |
| a rigid housing having a threaded rod extending through said housing, said treaded rod terminating in a suction cup of a resilient material for anchoring said housing to an underwater surface... | The complaint alleges the "Light Tester" infringes by making, using, and selling products embodying the invention, which includes these components. | ¶12 | col. 4:61-65 |
| said housing hollow on its interior, coupled to the resilient seal having an opening therethrough and having an inlet extending into the opening and accessible from the exterior to selectively deliver fluid... | The "Light Tester" is promoted via a website (Exhibit B) that allegedly instructs customers on its use, which would involve delivering fluid to detect leaks. A screenshot of this website is cited in the complaint. | ¶10, ¶18 | col. 5:1-9 |
| the housing being transparent whereby the flow of dye in the hollow housing is observable by a user of the device... | The complaint alleges Defendant's "Light Tester" embodies the invention, which includes this transparency feature for observing dye. | ¶10, ¶12 | col. 5:6-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 is specifically directed to a "leak detecting device for swimming pool lights." A potential point of contention is whether the accused "Light Tester" is exclusively for lights or if it has other non-infringing uses (e.g., for drains or skimmers), which would be relevant to the contributory infringement claim. The court may need to determine if the claim preamble is limiting.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on a factual comparison of the "Light Tester" product to the specific structural elements of claim 1. Key questions may include whether the accused product's anchoring mechanism is fairly described as a "threaded rod" that terminates in a "suction cup," and whether its housing is "transparent" as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "for swimming pool lights"
- Context and Importance: This phrase, found in the preamble of Claim 1, may be interpreted as a limitation on the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is deemed limiting, infringement would only occur when the device is used on a swimming pool light, and a product designed for multiple uses might not directly infringe under all circumstances.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent title ("System and Method for Detecting Leaks in a Fluid Filled Vessel") and the specification describe embodiments for use on drains (FIG. 1), skimmers (FIG. 13), and discharge pipes (FIG. 10), suggesting the overall invention is not limited to lights. A party might argue the phrase merely states an intended use.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The body of Claim 1 repeatedly references components specifically related to lights, such as a suction cup engaging "the dome of a light mounted in said swimming pool" (’959 Patent, col. 5:22-24, claim 3). This language ties the claimed structure directly to the "swimming pool light" context, suggesting the preamble is not mere surplusage but defines the invention of that specific claim.
The Term: "suction cup"
- Context and Importance: This term defines a key structural element for anchoring the device. Its construction is critical because if the accused "Light Tester" uses a different anchoring mechanism (e.g., magnetic, weighted, or a different shape of friction-based seal), it may not meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the suction cup as being made of a "resilient material, such as rubber" and shows it engaging the dome of a pool light, but does not strictly define its shape or operational physics beyond that context (’959 Patent, col. 4:39-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 8 depicts a specific, conventional cup shape (element 29) for the suction cup. A party could argue that this figure, combined with the common understanding of the term, limits its scope to structures that operate by creating a partial vacuum, and would not read on other types of resilient anchors.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant’s product description on its website (Exhibit B) "informs and instructs" customers on the infringing method of use (’Compl. ¶18). It further alleges contributory infringement, asserting the "Light Tester" is not a "staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses" and was "especially made or adapted for use" in an infringing manner (’Compl. ¶23-24).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiff claims to have sent Defendant a formal notice letter on February 2, 2017, which included a claim chart specifically detailing infringement of claim 1 of the ’959 Patent (’Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope: Is the preamble of Claim 1, "for swimming pool lights," a strict limitation on the claimed invention? The resolution will determine whether the accused product must be used on a pool light to infringe and will impact the analysis of indirect infringement, particularly if the product has other potential uses described in the patent's specification but not covered by the asserted claim.
- A second issue will be a factual-technical comparison: The case will turn on evidence showing whether the accused "Light Tester" contains the specific structures recited in Claim 1, such as a "threaded rod" terminating in a "suction cup" and a "transparent" housing. The dispute will likely focus on whether the components of the accused device are structurally and functionally equivalent to these claimed elements.
- A key question regarding damages will be willfulness: The complaint alleges that a specific notice letter and claim chart were sent four months prior to the suit. The court will examine whether Defendant's alleged continued sales after receiving this detailed notice constituted objectively reckless conduct sufficient to support enhanced damages.