DCT

0:24-cv-01454

Vectair Systems Inc v. Fresh Products Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:24-cv-01454, D. Minn., 04/20/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Vectair, the plaintiff, filed this declaratory judgment action in its home state of Minnesota. It alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action, namely the receipt of infringement accusations and licensing demands from Fresh Products, occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff Vectair Systems seeks a declaratory judgment that its urinal screen products do not infringe four patents owned by Defendant Fresh Products, and/or that those patents are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns fragranced urinal screens, a common hygiene product used in commercial restrooms to reduce urine splash-back and deodorize the surrounding area.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action was precipitated by a November 7, 2023, letter from Fresh Products accusing Vectair of infringing the patents-in-suit and demanding it cease sales and take a license. The complaint also notes the existence of a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed against U.S. Patent No. 10,145,098 (Petition No. 2024-0824), which may influence the scope and validity of that patent's claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-03-13 Alleged first public availability of "2012 Screen" prior art
2013-05-10 Alleged first public availability of Fresh Products' WAVE 3D prior art product
2013-09-03 Alleged first public availability of a second Fresh Products' WAVE 3D prior art product
2013-10-17 Alleged public availability of Fresh Products' Wave 2.0 prior art product
2014-11-05 Earliest Priority Date for ’098, ’924, and ’745 Patents; Filing Date for '411 Patent
2017-02-07 ’411 Patent Issued
2018-12-04 ’098 Patent Issued
2019-12-10 ’924 Patent Issued
2022-07-26 ’745 Patent Issued
2023-11-07 Fresh Products sends letter to Vectair alleging infringement
2024-04-20 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,145,098 - Urinal Screens (issued Dec. 4, 2018)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background notes that urinal screens are used to prevent debris from being flushed down a drain and to act as air fresheners, but does not identify a specific problem with prior art designs ('098 Patent, col. 1:18-22). The overall disclosure implies a need for improved splash reduction and ease of use.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a urinal screen constructed with a frame that has posts extending from both its top and bottom faces. This dual-sided post design allows the screen to be reversible, spacing the main frame from the urinal surface regardless of which side is placed down ('098 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:1-10). The frame itself is composed of a plurality of interconnected polygonal cells defined by braces that intersect at corners, creating a specific lattice structure ('098 Patent, col. 4:63-66).
  • Technical Importance: The reversible, dual-sided post structure aimed to simplify installation and ensure consistent performance in reducing both splash-back and the clogging of screen openings ('098 Patent, col. 7:11-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claim 19 as being asserted by Fresh Products (Compl. ¶28).
  • Essential elements of claim 19 include:
    • A urinal screen with a frame having a first and second face.
    • A plurality of interconnected cells defined by braces that intersect at corners, including a specific triangular arrangement of three cells defined by three intersecting braces.
    • A plurality of "first posts" connected to a brace or corner and extending away from the first face.
    • A plurality of "second posts" connected to a brace or corner and extending away from the second face (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 10,501,924 - Urinal Screens (issued Dec. 10, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with its parent, the ’924 Patent addresses the general need for effective, easy-to-use urinal screens that reduce splash and deodorize ('924 Patent, col. 1:18-22).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention refines the reversible screen concept, focusing on a structure of interconnected cells that form a "tessellation of openings." It explicitly claims a reversible function where posts on one side support the screen while posts on the other side deflect urine, and vice versa ('924 Patent, col. 8:13-25). The claims also require a "solid portion" occupying a specified area and mandate that the screen components comprise a "fragranced EVA material" ('924 Patent, col. 8:9-12, col. 9:9-11).
  • Technical Importance: By combining specific geometric constraints (tessellation), material properties (fragranced EVA), and functional elements (solid portion, reversible posts), the patent claims a specific, commercially-oriented product design ('924 Patent, col. 4:16-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claim 28 as being asserted by Fresh Products (Compl. ¶36).
  • Essential elements of claim 28 include:
    • A "reversible" urinal screen comprising a plurality of interconnected cells forming a "tessellation of openings."
    • A "solid portion" occupying an area greater than or equal to ten of the openings.
    • A plurality of posts positioned to be reversible, such that one set of post tips supports the screen on a urinal surface while the other set is positioned above the braces, and vice-versa in a second orientation.
    • A specific thickness limitation for the braces relative to the overall screen thickness.
    • A post connected at each corner of the openings.
    • The braces, posts, and solid portion comprise a "fragranced EVA material" (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 11,396,745 - Urinal Screens (issued July 26, 2022)

Technology Synopsis

The ’745 Patent describes a reversible urinal screen built on a flexible frame with protrusions extending from both faces. These protrusions are designed to support the screen, allowing fluid to pass underneath, and to deflect urine flow to reduce splashing, with the features working regardless of orientation ('745 Patent, Abstract). The claims focus on the screen's structural characteristics, including the relative surface area occupied by openings and the specific placement of protrusions on the sides or corners of those openings ('745 Patent, col. 8:1-55).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶43).

Accused Features

The complaint specifically denies that its accused products satisfy the limitations requiring a "second plurality of protrusions" and their associated splash-reducing function (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Design Patent No. D778,411 - Urinal Screen (issued Feb. 7, 2017)

Technology Synopsis

The ’411 Patent is a design patent that claims the unique ornamental appearance of a urinal screen, not its utilitarian features. The claimed design consists of the specific visual characteristics shown in its figures, which depict a screen with a hexagonal overall shape, a repeating pattern of hexagonal openings, and a distinct central area with a different visual pattern ('411 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 10).

Asserted Claims

Claim 1 (the sole claim) is asserted (Compl. ¶50).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of Vectair's "V-SCREEN" and "Second Screen" products would not be seen as substantially similar to the patented design by an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶¶ 57-58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two accused products: the "V-SCREEN (DUAL)" and a product referred to as the "Second Screen" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused screens are based on "industry-standard designs" that use a flexible body with openings for fluid to pass and posts on both sides to space the screen from the urinal drain (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides photographs of both accused products. The "V-SCREEN" is a yellow, circular screen with a honeycomb-like pattern of openings (Compl. p. 14). The "Second Screen" is an orange, circular screen featuring concentric rings of bristle-like protrusions radiating from the center (Compl. p. 14). Vectair argues that the basic designs were in use by others in the field before the patents' effective filing dates (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following charts summarize the infringement theory that Vectair is seeking to defeat. The complaint itself does not provide a detailed mapping of accused functionality to each claim element, instead identifying specific limitations it alleges are not met.

’098 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full element-by-element analysis of the accused products against claim 19.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Vectair's complaint states its accused products do not satisfy limitations 19.1, 19.4, 19.10, and 19.11 of claim 19 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Scope Questions: A primary point of dispute will be whether the structural components of the accused screens meet the definitions of "frame," "interconnected cells," and "posts" as used in the patent. For instance, do the raised edges of the "V-SCREEN's" honeycomb structure or the flexible bristles of the "Second Screen" constitute "posts"?
  • Technical Questions: The court may need to determine if the accused screens possess the specific triangular cell arrangement required by claim 19.5-19.9, which demands that three distinct braces intersect at a corner.

’924 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full element-by-element analysis of the accused products against claim 28.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Vectair's complaint states its accused products do not satisfy at least limitations 28.1 and 28.3 of claim 28 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Scope Questions: A key legal question is whether the accused products' structures constitute a "tessellation of openings." The term implies a repeating, interlocking geometric pattern, which may not describe the radial bristle design of the "Second Screen."
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the accused screens contain a "solid portion" that occupies an area "greater than or equal to ten of the openings." This quantitative limitation will require measurement and comparison between the products and the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "posts" (’098 Patent, cl. 19)

Context and Importance

This term is central because Vectair acknowledges its products have "posts on both sides" in a general sense but denies infringing claims requiring them (Compl. ¶16, ¶31). This suggests the dispute hinges on the specific definition of a "post." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the flexible bristles of the "Second Screen" or the integrated honeycomb walls of the "V-SCREEN" fall within the claim scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers generally to "a plurality of posts or structural supports 22" ('098 Patent, col. 4:7-9), which could be argued to encompass a wide variety of support structures.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, particularly FIG. 5, depict the "posts" (22a, 22b) as discrete, pillar-like structures extending perpendicularly from the frame, distinct from the walls of the cells themselves. This could support a narrower definition that excludes integrated walls or bristles.

The Term: "tessellation of openings" (’924 Patent, cl. 28)

Context and Importance

Vectair specifically denies that its products meet this limitation (Compl. ¶38). The term has a precise geometric meaning, and its construction is critical to determining infringement, especially for the "Second Screen" product, which does not appear to have a repeating, interlocking pattern.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "braces and corners form a tessellation" ('924 Patent, col. 2:40, incorporated by reference), which a party could argue focuses on the interconnected nature of the structure rather than strict geometric purity.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "tessellation" itself implies a geometric pattern of shapes that fit together without gaps. The patent's figures consistently show such a pattern of repeating hexagons (e.g., '924 Patent, FIG. 2), which could be used to argue that the term should be limited to such regular, gapless arrangements.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

Vectair seeks a declaration that it has not indirectly infringed any of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶30, ¶38, ¶45, ¶56). The complaint does not, however, set forth the specific factual allegations from Fresh Products that would form the basis of a claim for induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege willfulness, as Vectair is the plaintiff. However, it establishes a basis for a potential future willfulness claim by Fresh Products by noting that Fresh Products put Vectair on "official notice" of the alleged infringement via a letter dated November 7, 2023 (Compl. ¶11). This date would be critical for determining the period of any potential enhanced damages.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "posts" and "frame," which are depicted in the patents as discrete structural elements, be construed broadly enough to read on the integrated, continuous features of the accused products, such as the honeycomb walls of the "V-SCREEN" or the flexible bristles of the "Second Screen"?
  • A second key question will be geometric conformance: does the accused "Second Screen," with its radial rings of bristles, feature a "tessellation of openings" as required by the ’924 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed geometric arrangement that precludes a finding of infringement?
  • The case will also turn on validity based on prior public use: Vectair's complaint places significant emphasis on Fresh Products' own "WAVE 3D" and "Wave 2.0" products, which were allegedly sold and publicly available more than one year before the patents' 2014 priority date (Compl. ¶¶ 69-77). A determinative issue for the court will be whether these earlier products constitute invalidating prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, potentially rendering the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit invalid.